B-tech Vs gundum

[SylasGaunt]

Oh and by all means cite your examples of these cases where weapon impacts should have destroyed the head but didn't?

We've got one easily explainable case in Phelan's Trial, now if its so common where are the rest? (there's also the matter of head hits that DO result in the destruction of the cockpit)

[Vejut]

Probably take me 'til friday or saturday--until then, I have work and or/school all day 'til around 9-10(PM)...at that point, I want to kill some stuff (virtually, of course), and then go to bed.

As a side note, would you agree that 'mechs could severly damage if not destroy Gundams if they could put out GJ level firepower? What about their ability to be damaged by Gundams if they (the mechs) could put out that level of firepower (as their armor can take it)? Not saying they can with this statement, just making sure we ain't argueing over no point...

[SylasGaunt]

With gJ level firepower yeah they could damage and destroy gundams.


Generally when I compare Gundam with Battletech I tend to generally equate a Zaku MG with an AC/20 (no real basis, just going by them being the same caliber).

On the other hand it could be much more powerful (since an AC/20 may have a projectile velocity as low as Mach 1)

[Vejut]

Watch comparisons like that--for instance, revolutionary war era 18-pounders are the same caliber as modern BB/DDG/FG guns, but they ain't a scratch on 'em, or even guns from the Civil war. Not saying the tech difference is that great (or even at all), but you can get screwed by just going by weapon caliber--another example are .30-06 rounds vs. .38 special pistol rounds--.38 special has a bigger round, but less damage...same with .50AE and .50 BMG...same caliber, but the M2 round (the BMG) is WAAAAYY more powerful...

[VF5SS]

Gundams Gundams Gundams, screw the Gundams! That's just one type of Mobile Suit! Gimme one of these babies!

Model number: AMX-015
Code name: Geymark
Unit type: mass production Newtype use heavy mobile suit
Manufacturer: Neo Zeon
Operator: Neo Zeon
First deployment: UC 0088
Accommodation: pilot in panoramic monitor/linear seat cockpit in head
Dimensions: overall height 25.5 meters; head height 22.0 meters
Weight: empty 46.3 metric tons; max gross 78.7 metric tons; mass ratio 1.40
Construction: gundarium alloy on movable frame
Powerplant: Minovsky type ultracompact fusion reactor, output rated at 8320 kW
Propulsion: rocket thrusters: 2 x 31900 kg, 2 x 14300 kg; vernier thrusters/apogee motors: 28
Performance: maximum thruster acceleration 1.17 G
Equipment and design features: sensors, range 11700 meters; psycommu system
Fixed armaments: hyper mega particle gun, power rated at 30.5 MW, mounted in torso; mega particle gun, power rated at 6.2 MW, mounted in pelvic armor; 2 x 2-barrel mega particle gun, power rated at 4.5 MW, mounted on torso; 2 x mega particle gun, power rated at 5.5 MW, mounted on torso; 2 x beam saber, power rated at 0.85 MW, stored in recharge racks in knees, hand-carried in use; 2 x 3-tube grenade launcher, mounted in forearms; 2 x beam rifle, power rated at 2.3 MW, mounted in thumbs of hands; 2 x 3-barrel mega particle gun, power rated at 4.0 MW, mounted as "mitten" fingers in hands; 2 x 2-barrel beam launcher, power rated at 2.3 MW, mounted in shoulders; 2 x mega beam cannon, power rated at 3.8 MW, mounted in legs
Remote weapons: 2 x mother funnel (bit), each mounts 1 x mega particle gun and 14 x child funnel, stored on backpack; 28 x child funnel, each mounts beam gun, power rated at 1.8 MW, stored in mother funnels

[Kuja]

Naw, I'll take a Quin Mantha.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Dom!! Dom kicks ass!! Dom saves the day!! Dom Dom Dom!!!!

Can we please end this thread? It's just turned into every "B-Tech vs Gundam" thread I've ever seen, with the B-Tech side basically taking over the thread, arguing each others' nitpicks and discussing a mind-numbingly large list of issues concerning B-Tech, when the Gundam side eventually looses interest.

Which is why this subject was always avoided on Gundam MBs.

[SylasGaunt]

Watch comparisons like that--for instance, revolutionary war era 18-pounders are the same caliber as modern BB/DDG/FG guns, but they ain't a scratch on 'em, or even guns from the Civil war. Not saying the tech difference is that great (or even at all), but you can get screwed by just going by weapon caliber--another example are .30-06 rounds vs. .38 special pistol rounds--.38 special has a bigger round, but less damage...same with .50AE and .50 BMG...same caliber, but the M2 round (the BMG) is WAAAAYY more powerful...

I know, like I said I'm being rough.

On the other hand a Zaku MG appears to be in the same ballpark as the 180mm cannon on the Magella attack tank, which slings its shells around at around 5 kps.

And in the case of the .50AE and the .50BMG rounds you're comparing a IIRC pistol round to a rifle/machinegun round. In this case we're both comparing rapid fire automatic cannon (though as I said the comparison was just a general one).

On the other hand the MS machineguns seems to be more effective against mobile suits than the weapons mounted on feddie and zeke tanks and the Zeke's magella attack tank has a 180mm cannon that throws shells around at 5 kps.

[Darik Sdair]

I'd like a quote on that because checking the engine entries in my compendium doesn't say anything about it not being possible. Also the only reactor detonations I can remember are the one Kai deliberatley set up, the one in the MW3 intro, and IIRC Phelan's first wolfhound (though that only fried the mech and not much else)

<i>Maximum Tech, revised edition, page 19. "Though the scientific reality of fusion engines prevents them from exploding, the dramatic effect of such an expensive piece of machinery blowing up in a huge ball of fire is so appealing to the majority of BattleTech players that this rule was created to satisfy the common desire for a good explosion."

Fusion engine explosions are impossible in BattleTech, and optional rules for them are only there for entertainment purposes</i>

Also Stackpole has stated that when he wrote his books he worked closely with the FASA staff when writing those books.

<i>This matters... why? It doesn't change the fact that he got plenty of things wrong</i>

how about, I dunno, the ranges? How about the ultra low endurance for aerofighters?

<i>How are the ranges contradictory? The rules very clearly state that the <b>effective</b> range of weapons are different depending on the map the combat is taking place on; the land map, altitude map, and outer space map all have different effective ranges due to a number of different factors. Ultra low endurance? If I recall, in Aerotech 2nd edition, they dramatically increased the fuel/ton ration on fighters as well as making them less susceptible to critical hits because these issues were exxagerated in Aerotech 1st edition. The only contradiction is one edition superceding the other.... that's like saying we should ignore the core BattleTech game because 1st and 2nd edition disagree on what table club hits are applied to.</i>


Not that they don't reflect the game system, but because they expand upon it. The battletech game system can't portray every possibility without being obscenely complicated.

Furthermore according to the novel in question the PPC blast whipped across the head, it didn't score a hit full on. In other cases the damage done matches that in the novels just dandy (and Stackpole states that for battle scenes he actually rolls the dice for hit locations, etc.)



Except we aren't talking about the aerospace battlefield, we're talking about mechs.

<i>Actually, no we weren't. We were talking about the actual range of a weapon. You seem to be of the opinion that lasers in BT are actually big light-sabres that stop short at 450 meters. Never mind that every other tactical BT Universe rules set disagrees with you... including the core rules set (see Maximum Tech revised edition, page 23, extreme range)</i>

And that same green mechwarrior did a good bit better than warriors with more experience.

<i>Phelans battle performance has nothing to do with the issue at hand</i>

There's also the fact that the stated range matches the one given in the rulebook. Not that it should matter anyway since don't you think in the course of his training he would be educated as to the ranges of these weapons? Or do you think they just throw them into the field in a rare and expensive piece of equipment and let them guess?

<i>More likely, Phelan knows the effective range of his weapon, like he should know. Given that his training is pretty much "on the job" he probably doesn't know the full specs of the weapon. Remember, Phelan did not know what a pulse laser was, and only knew what a computer chip did because of his acquaintance with Clovis Hollstein.</i>



Except that games inherently have to deal with issues such as game balance. And I haven't been referencing any of the mechwarrior series novels. Just the battletech ones.

<i>BattleTech deals with game balance through "balancing of forces" rather than "balancing of rules" - that's the whole purpose of the Battle Value system. Besides, if BT was a balanced game in terms of rules, then every 'mech and every strategy should have an even chance - or at least a fair change - of defeating any other. That's obviously not true</i>



The fact of the matter is that game balance will always be a factor when you insist on debating using the game rules as your primary material.

Of course the change to the mechwarrior line (since none of the older books have been shifted to this) could simply mean the authors are using the mechwarrior RPG as their primary source.

<i>Um, no. The MechWarrior RPG is being renamed Classic Battletech RPG as part of the brand identity sorting-out. The old books are not changing imprint because of business issues, rather than any brand identity issues. FASA had a contract with (Del Rey, I think) to do a set number of books under the BattleTech imprint, it would be silly for them to recontract just to change the imprint on th books.</i>

Notice however that such is NOT the case in any of the examples I've sited. All this damage, be it from physical attacks or weapons fire has to get through the armor first. None of it is applied directly to the internal structure (aside from maybe shock to the pilot from a head hit, but none of it damages the internal components).

<i> So you're arguing now that laser beams, PPC blasts, gauss slugs, and physical combat all damage the target through the same mechanism? Are you not seeing that the armor/IS divide in BattleTech is not a literal representation? If the situation is so black and white, how to armor-piercing autocannon rounds do critical hits without damaging the internal structure?</i>
And don't you think any particular vulnerability to one or the other would be mentioned? The only case where this seems to come up is in the difference between pulse and beam lasers, and the reason behind this is due to the fact that beam lasers get somewhat dispersed by the material vaporizing off the target.

<i>Why would it be mentioned? The damage value of various attacks is listed in terms of a single abstract point system, so the strengths and weaknesses of various attacks are already taken into account.</i>


100-ton mech DFA = Twice as powerful as a Gauss rifle
Mad Dog charge (max length) = More than three times the strenght of a gauss rifle.
Timberwolf charging = Almost 4 times the strength of a gauss rifle.
Summonder DFA = 21 damage points (6 above a gauss rifle)
Mauler Charge = 3 times gauss rifle strength
Hunchback DFA = equal to gauss rifle
Hunchback charge = twice gauss rifle
Axman Hatchet= 2 points below gauss rifle (but still greater than any weapon on the axeman with the exception of its LRMs, and those need almost the entire salvo to match or exceed)
Axman Charge = more than twice gauss rifle
Axman DFA = 18 damage, again exceeding the gauss rifle
Bushwacker Charge = 40 damage
Raven Charge = 27 damage

The only mech in this case who's main weapon is consistently more powerful than the physical attack is with the Hunchback's death from above, while a full speed charge is more powerful than even the AC20.

<i>You do play BattleTech, right? How often do you see DFA or full-length charge attacks attempted, much less succeeded in? I suppose I did beg the comparison by bringing up the Fireball, but full-length charges and DFAs are so rare, that using them as a means of comparison really isn't viable. For every successful DFA I get with a 100-ton 'mech, my enemy is going to hit me with dozens of Gauss slugs. Like I said, using the Fireball was a poor choice in the analogy, but I was really referring to HtH attacks that have a reasonable chance of success.</i>

See above. A 65 ton axman's hatchet is more powerful than any weapon in its arsenal with the exception of the LRM 15s, and with those you'd need almost the entire salvo to hit in order to match or exceed the damage of said hatchet.

<i>Actually, the 65 ton Axman II's (that's the one you're talking about with the LRM-15s) laser battery can deal out 24 damage, and at range. (large pulse + 3 mediums).</i>
And even if they just fall down that can still equal the damage of some weapons. An archer just falling over will suffer almost as much damage as it would from an IS large laser.

Then why pray tell was it brought up in response to a request for evidence regarding aggressive jamming frying WGMs?

<i>You're mixing two points. That quote was referring to your ongoing denial that ECM exists on the BattleTech combat environment, not to your claims that WGMs are "too high tech" for BattleTech science</i>



And how would they be irrelavent if it was jamming that was reducing the ranges so much?

<i>Didn't you ask this question several posts back? If I recall I gave you a possible answer, but pointed out that regardless, the fact of the matter was the WGMs wouldn't make enough of a difference to be worth using</i>

Hardly considering it's part of the argument in regards to ECM being what makes their range so crap.

<i>Its only part of the argument because you insist somehow that WGMs are invulnerable, Star Trek shields-vs-lasers like, to the effects of a high-ECM environment.

1) BattleTech computers need tremendous shielding to operate in combat environments (unless, as you claim, BattleTech is operating with 1950s technology in terms of computers)

2) Missiles weigh about 5 kilograms each, not taking into account the loading mechanism.

Given that the problem is not only the targeting systems being "tricked" but also unshielded electronics being fried (see Fed Com Civil War sourcebook, page 95 sidebar - mid-size conventional battles in the BTU leave more fallout and contamination than the detonation of nuclear weapons (and big strategic ones at that, since the nukes they are referring to wiped out entire combat commands in single attacks)).</i>

<i>Almost forgot. About the gauss rifle business. You were saying they shoot melon-shaped "cannonballs" because the novels say so? Guess what, the novels are wrong again. Open up your copy of BattleTech Master Rules and look up "Gauss Rifle" in the technical readout. The text says nothing about cannonballs, and the illustration clearly shows a bullet-shaped slug.</i>

[SylasGaunt]

<i>Maximum Tech, revised edition, page 19. "Though the scientific reality of fusion engines prevents them from exploding, the dramatic effect of such an expensive piece of machinery blowing up in a huge ball of fire is so appealing to the majority of BattleTech players that this rule was created to satisfy the common desire for a good explosion."

Fusion engine explosions are impossible in BattleTech, and optional rules for them are only there for entertainment purposes</i>

<i>This matters... why? It doesn't change the fact that he got plenty of things wrong</i>

So the FASA staff apperantly are unable to control anything regarding the interpretation of their universe and just let the author right whatever he wants? It also doesn't change how much influence his stuff's had on the overall storyline.

<i>How are the ranges contradictory? The rules very clearly state that the <b>effective</b> range of weapons are different depending on the map the combat is taking place on; the land map, altitude map, and outer space map all have different effective ranges due to a number of different factors. Ultra low endurance? If I recall, in Aerotech 2nd edition, they dramatically increased the fuel/ton ration on fighters as well as making them less susceptible to critical hits because these issues were exxagerated in Aerotech 1st edition. The only contradiction is one edition superceding the other.... that's like saying we should ignore the core BattleTech game because 1st and 2nd edition disagree on what table club hits are applied to.</i>

According to the actual battletech rules (something you seem remarkably loathe to use) an aerofighter can make a grand total of two attack runs before it has to depart for refueling.

<i>Actually, no we weren't. We were talking about the actual range of a weapon. You seem to be of the opinion that lasers in BT are actually big light-sabres that stop short at 450 meters. Never mind that every other tactical BT Universe rules set disagrees with you... including the core rules set (see Maximum Tech revised edition, page 23, extreme range)</i>

Again, effective range is all that matters. Phelan did fire on a clan mech from beyond maximum range and the shot was said to do nothing to it.

<i>Phelans battle performance has nothing to do with the issue at hand</i>

Yet you claim that he cannot possibly be a source of information because he's inexperienced.

<i>More likely, Phelan knows the effective range of his weapon, like he should know. Given that his training is pretty much "on the job" he probably doesn't know the full specs of the weapon. Remember, Phelan did not know what a pulse laser was, and only knew what a computer chip did because of his acquaintance with Clovis Hollstein.</i>

He didn't know what a pulse laser was because nobody in the Inner Sphere had them. And again, Battlemechs are supposed to be rare, unless you're claiming the Kell Hounds are dumb enough to let someone pilot one of these into combat when they don't know what they're doing.

<i>BattleTech deals with game balance through "balancing of forces" rather than "balancing of rules" - that's the whole purpose of the Battle Value system. Besides, if BT was a balanced game in terms of rules, then every 'mech and every strategy should have an even chance - or at least a fair change - of defeating any other. That's obviously not true</i>

Also, thank you for taking my quote about the MechWarrior game line out of context. My point is that FanPro and its owner WizKids LLC has clearly separated the core BattleTech product from all the other lines, including the novels (hence the change in the imprint)[/i]

However do you have any quote anywhere that seperates the battletech novels from the battletech products? (classic Btech)

<i>Um, no. The MechWarrior RPG is being renamed Classic Battletech RPG as part of the brand identity sorting-out. The old books are not changing imprint because of business issues, rather than any brand identity issues. FASA had a contract with (Del Rey, I think) to do a set number of books under the BattleTech imprint, it would be silly for them to recontract just to change the imprint on th books.</i>

So they remain labeled battletech, and thus fall under it.

<i> So you're arguing now that laser beams, PPC blasts, gauss slugs, and physical combat all damage the target through the same mechanism? Are you not seeing that the armor/IS divide in BattleTech is not a literal representation? If the situation is so black and white, how to armor-piercing autocannon rounds do critical hits without damaging the internal structure?</i>

I'm arguing that their relative power can only be judged by the damage points present. Since you seem so desperate to throw out any source other than the game system to base it on, then I see little reason for you to complain if I do use it.

And I never said they all damage using the same mechanism, however if it took 10 times the firepower for a laser to do the same damage as a gauss rifle don't you think something like this would be mentioned somewhere? That any specific weakness to the armor would come up in a description?

<i>Why would it be mentioned? The damage value of various attacks is listed in terms of a single abstract point system, so the strengths and weaknesses of various attacks are already taken into account.</i>

One which is the only judge of relative power.

<i>You do play BattleTech, right? How often do you see DFA or full-length charge attacks attempted, much less succeeded in? I suppose I did beg the comparison by bringing up the Fireball, but full-length charges and DFAs are so rare, that using them as a means of comparison really isn't viable. For every successful DFA I get with a 100-ton 'mech, my enemy is going to hit me with dozens of Gauss slugs. Like I said, using the Fireball was a poor choice in the analogy, but I was really referring to HtH attacks that have a reasonable chance of success.</i>

However these attacks all still put a superior amount of damage on the target. Since we have a stated speed of impact as well as mass figuring the kinetic energy absorbed is a simple matter

<i>Actually, the 65 ton Axman II's (that's the one you're talking about with the LRM-15s) laser battery can deal out 24 damage, and at range. (large pulse + 3 mediums).</i>

And I notice you had to group the weapons. No single weapon on the axman can match the hatchet aside from the LRM-15s

<i>You're mixing two points. That quote was referring to your ongoing denial that ECM exists on the BattleTech combat environment, not to your claims that WGMs are "too high tech" for BattleTech science</i>

Yet you reference WGMs and do it in response to a request for evidence to back your reasoning behind their lack of them.

And ECM obviously isn't the big range-killer you claim since no matter what you're shooting at and no matter how many other mechs are on the battlefield the ranges don't change, just the to-hit modifiers for target movement. An empty building or a wooded hex will have the same ranges for weapons used against it as used against a battlemech.

<i>Its only part of the argument because you insist somehow that WGMs are invulnerable, Star Trek shields-vs-lasers like, to the effects of a high-ECM environment.

Evidence for which you have yet to provide. A single mech alone on the battlefield will not suddenly have a huge jump in range.

And a WGM would be immune to pretty much anything but ECM powerful enough to cook it (which I fail to see why that wouldn't work on dumb-fires as well).

1) BattleTech computers need tremendous shielding to operate in combat environments (unless, as you claim, BattleTech is operating with 1950s technology in terms of computers)

Evidence please.

Given that the problem is not only the targeting systems being "tricked" but also unshielded electronics being fried (see Fed Com Civil War sourcebook, page 95 sidebar - mid-size conventional battles in the BTU leave more fallout and contamination than the detonation of nuclear weapons (and big strategic ones at that, since the nukes they are referring to wiped out entire combat commands in single attacks)).</i>

Of course it can't be that much to begin with since unarmored infantry can fight in it without worry.

<i>Almost forgot. About the gauss rifle business. You were saying they shoot melon-shaped "cannonballs" because the novels say so? Guess what, the novels are wrong again. Open up your copy of BattleTech Master Rules and look up "Gauss Rifle" in the technical readout. The text says nothing about cannonballs, and the illustration clearly shows a bullet-shaped slug.</i>

A melon shape and a cannonball are quite different.

Also while we're on the subject of illustrations from the compendium, I feel I should point out that every image in that book where we can see both combatants exchanging fire shows them operating at low ranges.

[VF5SS]

Damn you B-techers! Hijacking this thread! that's it! We're sending Colony Devil Gundam, Turn A Gundam, and Turn X after you!

[Darik Sdair]

Damn you B-techers! Hijacking this thread! that's it! We're sending Colony Devil Gundam, Turn A Gundam, and Turn X after you!

LOL you know, you're right. I've said my piece, have fun guys - just keep those scary Syd Mead Gundams away from me!!

Sylas - I'm sure we could go back and forth on this till the cows come home, but I've had my fill. My argument, I think, can stand on its own merits; no need for me to further spam up this discussion.

Have fun guys.

[Kuja]

Damn you B-techers! Hijacking this thread! that's it! We're sending Colony Devil Gundam, Turn A Gundam, and Turn X after you!

Turn A? *laughes* Wing Zero'll turn them all into roast meat.

[VF5SS]

Damnit I want them to face down the Mustached Turn A Gundam with enough nano robot power to wipe all the technology on earth! And it did do that too!

[Kuja]

hehe. true. Let 'em face the Devil Gundam Corps!

Devil Gundam
Gundam Heaven's Sword
Grand Gundam
Master Gundam
Fuunsaiki
Walter Gundam
Grand Master Gundam
Death army, navy, beast, bird

Muwhahahahahaa! They're so dead.

[VF5SS]

Hell hath no fury like an Alternate Universe Gundam machine.

[Kuja]

LOL, good one. What's your fav EU? Mine's G Gundam, but I haven't seen much of GX, and I like EW more than Wing.

[VF5SS]

My favorite is G Gundam. Chibodee Crocket is a true mack daddy Though I hear he has an Oedipus complex

[Kuja]

Naw, someone started that rumor cause of the 'clown' episode.

I like Argo. Did you see the episode where he fought H'sS? "Come here, crazy bird and I'll turn ya into roast turkey!"

I like Allenby too.

BTW, what do you think of the dubbed names? I like most of 'em, although some piss me off.

[VF5SS]

Ah I see. Yeah Argo is pretty cool, his Hyper Mode attack is certainly impressive. The dub names sorat rub me the wrong way since some of them were change for no apparent reason. John Bull Gundam to Royal Gundam? Would it be that bad if the kids learned what Little Johnny Bull was? Crazy stuff and this whole Dark Gundam and Dark this and that is friggen anoying. You can say god, heaven, hell, and devil in Zoids! Wouldn't the fundies like it when God Gundam destroys Devil Gundam? Strange logic behind them there censors

[Kuja]

Actually, I like Dark and Burning.

I think Burning Gundam has a better ring to it than God (Shining, Burning, Rising)

And now you have Dark Gundam and Dark Army, which I think fits together better.

I think Royal is a frivolous change though, as well as Nether's change to Hurricane. (did you notice they didn't change his special move 'Nether Typhoon? LOL)

And what's this shit about Noble Gundam? It's NOBEL, like the prizes! Dumb shits...

[VF5SS]

Its also Nobel in the sense that she carries her little beam ribbon around like a stick o' dynamite

[Kuja]

Haha *claps* very good.
I also like the girls better than the other Gundam series. They're cute.

[VF5SS]

Yeah, they got a great character designer for G.

[Kuja]

Can you answer this? Early on when Domon did the burning finger, he'd say something I can't make out. He says Erupting Burning Finger, and then he says something just before his opponent explodes. Could you understand it?